University, Washington, DC, USA b Saban Center at Brookings Washington, DC, USA

Transcription

1 This article was downloaded by: [S Rajaratnam School of International Studies NTU] On: 23 April 2013, At: 21:21 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: Registered office: Mortimer House, Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Studies in Conflict & Terrorism Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: Fighting Salafi-Jihadist Insurgencies: How Much Does Religion Really Matter? Daniel Byman a b a Security Studies Program School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA b Saban Center at Brookings Washington, DC, USA Version of record first published: 18 Apr To cite this article: Daniel Byman (2013): Fighting Salafi-Jihadist Insurgencies: How Much Does Religion Really Matter?, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 36:5, To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

2 Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 36: , 2013 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: X print / online DOI: / X Fighting Salafi-Jihadist Insurgencies: How Much Does Religion Really Matter? DANIEL BYMAN Security Studies Program School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University Washington, DC, USA Saban Center at Brookings Washington, DC, USA How do jihadist insurgencies differ from non-jihadist ones? Jihadist insurgents, like all insurgents, seek to control the government, need money and weapons, and thrive where government is weak. Yet their cause jihad at local, regional, and global levels gives them instant friends and resources, but also built-in enemies and burdens. Jihadist insurgents often organize, recruit, and fund-raise differently than traditional insurgent groups. The agendas of these militant groups often go against the local residents sense of nationalism and anger these communities with their extreme interpretations of Islam. To take advantage of this, the United States can amplify local voices that are best able to discredit these insurgents and press allied regimes to disrupt the mosques, schools, and fund-raising networks that help support them. However, Washington should also recognize that weakening these groups at the local level may make them more likely to embrace international terrorism. Allied efforts to co-opt jihadists may make area societies and governments less favorable to other U.S. policies. Finally, failed democratization a particularly salient issue given the Arab Spring risks playing into the jihadist narrative. For over ten years the United States has fought or helped its allies fight an array of insurgencies. 1 Afghanistan and Iraq are only the most prominent examples of countries with strong insurgencies: fighting has also plagued India, Mali, Nepal, Nigeria, Uganda, and Yemen, among many others. For the United States, however, the most prominent and challenging insurgent foes are those motivated by a desire to impose a political system that they claim derives from the tenets of Islam. Many of these Islamists espouse a virulent anti-u.s. agenda and are affiliated with or allied to, in varying degrees, Al Qaeda. Such associations are not surprising: as part of its core mission, Al Qaeda has always promoted like-minded insurgencies. Indeed, in the words of one expert, Al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden promoted, and at times directed, a worldwide, religiously inspired, and Received 14 November 2012; accepted 9 December I thank Steve Biddle, Tess deblanc-knowles, Seth Jones, and members of the RAND Insurgency Board conference for their help and comments on previous versions of this article. Address correspondence to Daniel Byman, Professor, Security Studies Program in the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University. dlb32@georgetown.edu 353

3 354 D. Byman professionally guided Islamist insurgency. 2 So defeating Al Qaeda, in part, depends on defeating its insurgent allies. Beyond the Al Qaeda link, the goals of these movements are often transnational, and as a result insurgencies in remote areas such as Mali and Yemen risk spreading to neighboring countries, thus developing into far bigger strategic problems. 3 It is tempting to dismiss the role of Islam in these insurgencies or, more accurately, argue that the religious dimension is little more than another twist on a centuries-old strategy for gaining political power. In many ways this is true: Islamist insurgents, like all insurgents, seek to control the government, need money and weapons, and thrive where government is weak. Yet Islamist insurgents also possess their own distinct characteristics. Their cause jihad at local, regional, and global levels gives them instant friends and resources, but also built-in enemies and burdens. They often organize, recruit, and fund-raise differently than traditional insurgent groups, taking advantage of particular constituencies but at the same time confronting the challenges inherent in their limited appeal. Not surprisingly, the best ways to fight Islamist insurgents varies too. These agendas of these militant groups often go against the local residents sense of nationalism and anger these communities with their extreme interpretations of Islam. To take advantage of this, the United States can amplify local voices that are best able to discredit these insurgents and press allied regimes to disrupt the mosques, schools, and fund-raising networks that help support them. In addition, the United States and its allies need to adopt a more regional and global approach to counter the cross-border nature of the insurgencies they are fighting. Washington should also recognize the tradeoffs inherent in fighting these groups: weakening these groups at the local level may make them more likely to embrace international terrorism. Allied efforts to coopt Islamists may make area societies and governments less favorable to other U.S. policies. Finally, failed democratization a particularly salient issue given the Arab Spring risks playing into the jihadist narrative. How do Islamist insurgencies differ from non-islamist ones? In trying to answer this question, this article focuses on a subset of Islamist insurgencies: those with a Salafijihadist ideology that are often affiliated with, allied to, or sympathize with Al Qaeda. 4 Examples of this category include groups such as Al Qaeda of Iraq (AQI), Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the Shebaab in Somalia, Al Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Boko Haram in Nigeria, Ansar Dine in Mali, the Taliban, and elements found among insurgents in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Kashmir. This article first reviews the basic needs of every insurgent movement. It then discusses the specificities of Salafi-jihadist insurgencies, determining how they do, and do not, differ in their needs and in the manner in which they seek to achieve their objectives. The third section assesses the associated strengths and weaknesses that derive from the Salafijihadist approach to insurgency. The article builds on this assessment in the fourth section by discussing how the counterinsurgency (COIN) toolkit should be modified to best combat Salafi-jihadist insurgents. The article concludes by examining several of the tradeoffs associated with COIN against Salafi-jihadists. What All Insurgencies Need: A Review Every insurgency is unique in its particulars, but in general they share a common set of factors that allow them to survive and, in some cases, prosper. 5 These include, but are not limited to: A Cause. Insurgents fight for something: their land, their social class, their people, and so on. At times, this cause is vague or ineffable, and it is frequently overcome

4 Fighting Salafi-Jihadist Insurgencies 355 by revenge, survival, and other immediate factors or by local specificities that defy easy categorization. 6 A successful cause, however, is an emotive one that is linked with an identity around which people can rally against a perceived enemy. 7 A Narrative and Propaganda. Related to the cause is the story that an organization tells about its struggle, including its critique of the current order, what it plans to offer supporters, and how it will govern when it comes to power. This narrative carries with it both rewards and threats: the proletariat or peasants are championed by Marxists, while the bourgeoisie or landed classes are threatened. Nationalists favor one language or culture group but oppose supposedly foreign groups and those within their own community who work with them. The narrative draws on the cause but is not identical: the group may emphasize or deemphasize parts of its true goals in its narrative to more effectively attract popular support. Organizations typically develop propaganda apparatuses to diffuse and publicize their narrative, although at times it is spread largely by word of mouth and charismatic leaders. Weak Government. When government is strong, it is able to police its citizens, provide basic services, and otherwise take the wind out of an insurgent s sails not to mention employ thousands or even millions of police and soldiers to actively hunt down insurgents. Even if the insurgency is confronting an unpopular government and has considerable support for its narrative, taking on a strong regime is challenging. 8 Haven. Vital for any insurgency is a base from which to operate. 9 A haven provides the insurgents with a safe area to recruit, fund-raise, propagandize, plan, train, and secure their leadership. If the government being opposed is strong, this haven is often situated outside the country, ideally along its borders. 10 However, if the government is weak, the group may be able to carve out portions of the countryside, or even parts of urban areas, to use as sanctuary. Recruits. Insurgencies, like conventional militaries, need bodies. Hundreds of fighters are usually necessary before an insurgency is recognized as such, and numbers in the thousands or tens of thousands are common. Insurgencies need a steady stream of recruits to replace those who are killed or arrested or desert and defect. Ideally, recruits are educated, motivated, and come from a range of backgrounds, which enables the insurgency to claim it is speaking for as broad a community as fits its ideology. If the recruits only come from one of many communities within a country, the group risks being labeled a narrow movement out to advance only a small part of society s interests regardless of its narrative. Weapons and Supplies. As with recruits, insurgencies need a stream of weapons, ammunition, medicine, and other supplies to replace equipment lost or broken. Insurgents rarely possess the ability to outgun regime forces, but having a steady supply of weapons allows them to offset regime advantages in mobility and airpower, helping to level the playing field, or at least reduce its tilt. Organization, Unity, and Leadership. To be more than a mob, an insurgency requires organization and leadership. Communist insurgencies historically employed a model of tight organization, while other insurgencies have drawn on traditional tribal leaders and structures or have coalesced around other, more decentralized figures. In some instances the nominal leadership of an insurgency exercises at best loose control over the overall movement. Usually, the more organized and disciplined the insurgency, the more likely it is to prosper. Intelligence and Counterintelligence. Insurgents must gather intelligence on a government to determine weaknesses and potential targets and, even more importantly, to prevent the government from learning insurgent identities and whereabouts. 11

5 356 D. Byman This often requires outreach to, or intimidation of, the civilian population. Nathan Leites and Charles Wolf, Jr. emphasize the particular problem of nondenunciation convincing the population not to inform on rebel activities to the government and, ideally, to provide intelligence to the insurgents. 12 If insurgents do not gain popular acquiescence, the people will betray the insurgents and the government s firepower advantage will quickly neutralize them. Bad Counterinsurgents. Insurgents do not win through unilateral efforts alone they often find their adversary to be their best friend. Weak states (or sluggish leaders) may respond feebly to a nascent insurgency, enabling it to gain strength when it could otherwise be easily suppressed. Conversely, a state s over-reaction and poor counterinsurgency doctrine can work to alienate local communities, strengthen the insurgents narrative, alienate neighboring states that might prove a haven, and drive the population into the arms of the insurgents. Some of the above are universal requirements of insurgency, such as recruits and organization, while others fall into the category of highly useful. The particular balance, of course, varies, determined by the setting of the insurgency and the stage of the insurgency, among other factors. 13 Salafi-Jihadist Variations Salafi-jihadist insurgencies, like all insurgencies, need a combination of the above factors to survive and prosper. Yet their particular jihadist flavor affords them distinct attributes that affect their success and provides the starting point for how to best combat them. This section adapts the generic list above to the Salafi-jihadist particulars. The cause of Salafi-jihadist insurgencies is distinct from most insurgencies historically. Salafi-jihadist insurgencies all embrace the goal of establishing an Islamic state, overturning supposedly apostate governments, and driving the United States, other Western powers, and their local non-salafi allies out of their country or region. The precise order of these goals may vary between and within groups, but they universally stress a rejection of any deviation from what they perceive as the oneness of God and display hostility to non- Muslims. 14 Deviators range from the obvious (unbelievers) to supposed apostates (notably Shi a Muslims, in many countries) to those Sunnis who are not fully devoted and embrace folk customs, mysticism, or simply a more compromising form of political Islam. Salafijihadist groups are also opposed to democracy, which they consider elevates man s law above God s. 15 Furthermore, Salafi-jihadists oppose nationalism, rejecting the boundaries that divide Muslims as drawn by colonial powers and recognized by the community of nations. They call on Muslims to fight as Muslims, not as Egyptians, Iraqis, or other national communities. As noted below, their logistics and other networks equally disregard these boundaries, extending across borders. The narrative and propaganda of Salafi-jihadist insurgencies stress that young men should join the fighting, while older men, women, and children should succor the insurgents financially and organizationally. Salafi-jihadist rhetoric often dwells on the more popular elements of their ideology, particularly resistance to non-muslim foreigners or to disliked rival Muslim communities. As such, AQI stressed the need to resist the Iraqi Shi a community s bid for power (often tied in with rhetoric aimed at the foreign Persians next door in Iran) and jihadist propaganda in Syria stresses the apostate nature of the Alawi leadership. Targeting often reflects this narrative. The Islamic Group and Egyptian Islamic Jihad attacked Coptic Christians and intellectuals in Egypt as part of their campaign in the

6 Fighting Salafi-Jihadist Insurgencies s. They opposed the secular and nationalistic nature of the intellectuals, who usually emphasized Arabness and Egyptianness as a political identity as opposed to Islam. 16 They also scorned the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, believing that the organization s hesitation on issue of jihad and its willingness to compromise made it a traitor to the overall cause. Indeed, there are vicious propaganda fights currently occurring between Salafi-jihadists and Brotherhood figures. Ayman al-zawahiri even took the time to write a book denouncing the Muslim Brotherhood s supposed betrayal of Islam. In Gaza, Hamas, a Brotherhood-based group, has forcefully suppressed Salafi-jihadists. 17 Due to their rejection of nationalism, Salafi-jihadists often operate regionally and internationally. They do not see the border between, say, Iraq and Syria as having any political value indeed, its existence goes against their ideal of Muslim unity. Thus, in contrast to most insurgencies (including most non-salafi-jihadist Islamist insurgencies), the struggle reaches well beyond the country in question. Yet their rejection of nationalism is often honored only in the breach. Their rhetoric is often anti-foreign and warns that the Muslim community is under attack in many ways, they are defining their religious community as a nation. As Graham Fuller contends, Islamist struggles are in fact far more likely to succeed when they harness nationalism, as they have intermittently done in Chechnya, Kashmir, Iraq, and elsewhere. 18 These narrative points are often confused, however, because of the organization and leadership of most Salafi-jihadist groups. The movement is globalized, and many struggles cross borders, but it is not unified. Within the Salafi-jihadist community, a range of sheikhs are cited in justifying jihadist actions. These sheikhs, however, differ with regard to both priorities and tactics. 19 And within the fighting groups themselves, individual leaders stress different agendas and justifications. Unity is often elusive, and infighting is common. Ideological differences, and the decentralized nature of the logistics networks, make it difficult for leaders to suppress rival groups and discipline the movement. Simply put, in many cases no one has the authority whether from charisma, political dominance, or logistical and financial control to enforce order. The Al Qaeda core has tried to encourage affiliated and allied insurgencies to unite both locally and globally, but has had at best mixed success. The decline in Al Qaeda core funding and operational freedom has further hindered this goal. Only rarely do these insurgencies draw on traditional leaders. Indeed, their religious message usually positions them in opposition to the religious traditions of the country, with the exception of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, particularly with regard to folk and mystical elements. They often excoriate traditional religious leaders rather than coopt them. Instead and in keeping with their attitude that religion, not nationality, is what should matter foreigners have often played important roles in leadership. For example, much of the Shebaab s current leadership is foreign, and AQI s founder and first leader, Abu Musab al-zarqawi, was a Jordanian. The level of government weakness in the Muslim world varies, but in general it is weaker and at more risk of political instability than the average country. 20 This weakness varies, however, with states of the Persian Gulf proving strong in many ways, while countries such as Mali, Somalia, and Yemen exhibit weak governments. Making this assessment difficult is a question of causality: the successful insurgency keeps the government weak and thus is as much a cause of, as opposed to result of, the government weakness. So in Iraq and Algeria, AQI and AQIM respectively have prevented the governments from further consolidating power. Salafi-jihadist insurgencies often enjoy the benefits of a haven in neighboring states. Traditionally, states support insurgent movements for ideological reasons, to weaken rivals,

7 358 D. Byman and to placate domestic audiences. 21 There is no state that currently shares an ideology with Al Qaeda linked groups. However, Pakistan has supported a range of Pakistani Salafijihadist groups to advance its agendas in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iran offers more limited support to Al Qaeda in part to preserve its options to strike at potential foes as well as gain leverage within this movement. 22 Even more common is the toleration of Salafi-jihadist activities. Under former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, Yemen turned a blind eye to jihadist organization and operations abroad in order to turn them against domestic foes and to avoid alienating important constituents. Syria before the civil war there allowed jihadists to transit its country to fight in Iraq in order to bleed U.S. forces there. A number of countries in the Muslim world have allowed jihadists to raise money, issue propaganda, and recruit either due to a lack of concern over their activities or a sense that a confrontation would be politically risky. None of these havens are comparable to traditional havens such as what the Viet Cong enjoyed in North Vietnam. However, they all enable Salafi-jihadist insurgents to hold some degree of sanctuary. Making this more complex, the transnational nature of the Salafi-jihadist cause often leads groups to support one another so a limited haven may be granted by another nonstate actor rather than a friendly government. Geographic proximity, not surprisingly, plays a vital role. AQI is able to help Salafi-jihadists in Syria in part by giving them a rear base for logistical activity. Unusually, the Al Qaeda core also saw itself as providing a logistics function for the entire movement: it set up training camps, issued propaganda, and established recruiting and transit networks. It endeavored to assist not only its own activities, but also those of a wide array of like-minded groups. For example, fighters in Egypt might have trained in Pakistan as part of a deliberate Al Qaeda effort to shore up like-minded groups. This transnational nature also affects recruiting and weapons. Although the bulk of recruits are typically local, there is a large cadre of foreigners attracted to fights in Somalia, Syria, and of course Iraq. These foreign fighters often come with advantages. Many are highly dedicated and willing to conduct suicide attacks. The State Department reported 279 suicide bombings in 2011, with Sunni extremists conducting 93 percent of them. 23 In addition, they often bring lessons learned and best practices from other fights, increasing the pace of innovation. Moreover, many are combat veterans: they are more skilled and more dedicated, making them highly valued by local fighters who respect their determination and proficiency. One local commander in Syria noted that his own forces lack the ability to plan and lacks military experience. That is what [Al Qaeda] can bring. They have an organization that all countries have acknowledged. 24 Recruiting is thus done on two levels: local and international. This often should involve (but does not always in practice) different streams of propaganda. Complicating this effort, however, is the fact that what appeals to foreigners often does not work with locals and vice-versa. In particular, the nationalist flavor of some Islamist insurgencies may turn off foreign fighters, while the rejection of nationalism and the more extreme religious views of highly motivated foreigners may turn off locals. Al Qaeda linked fighters have complained that groups in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and elsewhere lack a proper understanding of Islam, while fighters in these and other countries often oppose the puritanical practices of the foreigners. Much recruiting is done via religious networks and organizations. 25 Mosques and religious social organizations are often important for encouraging individuals to enter the broader movement and provide local spotters for insurgents, giving them the opportunity to identify likely recruits. Mosques develop reputations, and some mosques may have

8 Fighting Salafi-Jihadist Insurgencies 359 particularly high concentrations of insurgent sympathizers. Thus in some countries there may be only a small number of mosques where insurgent sympathizers hold sway. 26 Charismatic preachers or fighters often play a particularly important role in inspiring individuals to join the fight. Recruitment may be highly decentralized, with individuals joining up because they are attracted to the message of one person, rather than the mission of the group as a whole. This creates multiple recruitment centers within a group, not all of which are subject to the discipline of the central insurgent leadership. Weapons and supplies are usually local in origin, though exceptions abound. Iraq and Yemen were already awash in arms, and fighters in Syria have obtained weapons primarily from standard black market sources as well as from the Syrian army itself. (In Mali, in contrast, much of the weaponry came from Libya s arsenals.) However, the funds for many of these purchases can come from abroad, particularly if the support or toleration of foreign governments allows for the establishment of cross-border supply networks. Wealthy donors have provided money for fighters in particularly popular struggles, providing local fighters with the means to attract recruits and arm themselves more effectively. 27 Much of the funding for Chechen rebels in the late 1990s came from wealthy supporters in the Gulf: little of the money came from government coffers, but area regimes tolerated this support. Intelligence and counterintelligence pose particular difficulties for the foreign fighters within Al Qaeda linked groups. Differences in language, dialect, or accent make them stand out from the locals, and thus more easily identifiable by regime and foreign intelligence officials. Even more important, locals may be less willing to cooperate with foreigners and more willing to identify and betray them, both because they hold no sense of national loyalty to them and because the foreigners lack the community ties that make betrayal difficult in many cases. Finally, insurgent counterintelligence is often done in a rudimentary way, relying on the vetting of individuals through the numerous but not systematic reporting by members of the local community. This process works well, for the most part, when the fighters are local, but in the case of foreigners gaining a similarly large volume of information is far harder. Generalizing about the counterinsurgents facing Salafi-jihadist insurgencies is difficult, as they vary widely in their competence and nature. In some cases they preside over a nation divided by religion, sect, and ethnicity, making it difficult for the regime to take the wind out of the insurgents sails without alienating key supporters or broad communities. In many instances the governments are venal and incompetent, tarnished further with a hefty dose of brutality. On balance, however, their skill and political weaknesses appear similar to that of many of the countries in the developing world currently facing insurgencies. 28 Here there is a selection effect: in countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, there is no Salafi-jihadist insurgency because the governments crushed them, while in other countries insurgents of roughly the same strength survived or even grew because the governments they faced were too weak or incompetent to defeat them. Associated Strengths and Weaknesses Salafi-jihadist insurgents, like all insurgents, are usually outgunned by their adversaries, and often suffer from defections and desertions. Likewise, they often flourish when governments are corrupt, weak, and incompetent. Nevertheless, the particular strengths and weaknesses of Salafi-jihadist combatants deserve considerable attention. Strengths Even with the death of bin Laden and the Arab Spring, the Salafi-jihadist ideology remains alive and well. The discourse in the Muslim world is far more open to the global outlook

9 360 D. Byman Salafi-jihadists espouse than it was in the years before 9/ In addition, Al Qaeda and several like-minded groups have built up a vast and sophisticated propaganda apparatus that, through a range of media, reaches across borders in the Muslim world. 30 Polling data, however imperfect, suggests the power of some of these ideas. A 2011 poll found declining, but still quite high, support for Al Qaeda in Muslim countries easily high enough to support an insurgency. In Nigeria, Al Qaeda received a favorability rating of almost 50 percent. This figure came in at just over 25 percent in the Palestinian territories and about 20 percent in Indonesia and Egypt. 31 Thus, it is evident that some of the causes, grievances and narrative of Salafi-jihadist groups enjoy at least some credibility with some audiences in the host country. Often this backing is dismissed as not representing majority opinion, and this is almost invariably the case. But in many cases no group exists that effectively channels majority opinion. Moreover, these groups are often highly committed and ruthless, which enables them to suppress potential rivals or at least survive long enough to generate some organizational momentum. So Salafi-jihadists can mix the genuine support they enjoy with the use of violence to intimidate individuals away from supporting rival groups or the government, both of which may represent unattractive options to constituents for other reasons. Because of the power of these ideas and their institutional support, Salafi-jihadist groups enjoy a built-in fund-raising and recruitment structure at least outside the host country. In Saudi Arabia and several other Gulf states, Salafi ideas enjoy considerable support among the religious establishment. Many wealthy citizens of these countries provide direct financing to fighters overseas and monetary support for a range of charities and other religiously oriented organizations that Salafi-jihadist groups can exploit and coopt. In Syria, as one expert noted, You have secular people and very moderate Islamists who join Salafi groups because they have the weapons and the money. There tends to be more Salafi guys in the way the groups portray themselves than in the groups on the ground. 32 The Salafi-jihadist insurgencies attract many foreign fighters. The Shebaab have between 200 and 500 foreign fighters in their ranks, while as many as five percent of Iraq s insurgents came from outside Iraq and perhaps over 10 percent in the case of Yemen large numbers given the sizes of these insurgencies. 33 (Nigeria appears to have little or no foreign role so far.) In Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Yemen, among other countries, Al Qaeda linked groups are thriving. To different degrees, these groups cooperate with one another and with the Al Qaeda core based in Pakistan. 34 In so doing, they gain access to weapons, supplies, recruitment networks, training, and other essentials that typical, more locally based, insurgents lack. In addition, these like-minded insurgencies offer a lessons learned factory, where insurgents can be trained in the latest Improvised Explosive Device (IED) technology and discuss which propaganda is the most and least effective. In some cases, as noted above, these insurgents may provide their brothers next door with a de facto haven. In Syria, for example, fighters are drawing on networks from Iraq and Lebanon for logistics. 35 Pakistani groups, of course, provide a wide range of support to the Afghan Taliban and other anti-regime fighters. This support can involve training, assistance with recruitment, a haven for leaders, and other vital assistance. Ideology glorifying martyrdom paired with the ability to attract foreign fighters enables Salafi-jihadist groups to attract suicide bombers and sustain a terror campaign, making them relatively more deadly in their use of terrorism as compared to other insurgent groups. Thus, Salafi-jihadist groups often come to the fight with a range of advantages. Their message and their networks enjoy considerable reach, and they are consistently able to

10 Fighting Salafi-Jihadist Insurgencies 361 sustain an effective insurgency. However, many of the factors that make them formidable also limit their appeal and leave them vulnerable to government and U.S. countermeasures. Weaknesses The Salafi-jihadists have a limited appeal, one that touches on cultural chords and symbols that attract select audiences but simultaneously alienate and exclude other, usually far bigger, demographics. Many of their weaknesses stem from this exclusionary ideology. The global nature of the Salafi-jihadist ideology, and the broader transnational networks on which they draw, set them squarely in opposition to nationalism. In some countries, where national sentiment is already weak, this represents at most a limited problem for them. Yet in many countries, the other elements of anti-government opposition espouse strongly nationalistic positions and may oppose the Salafi-jihadists as a direct result of their foreign connections. Moreover, even countries like Somalia and Afghanistan, which, to put it charitably, are weak states, hostility to foreigners, including fellow Muslims, remains strong, particularly if they are perceived as seeking to control the politics of the country. The central propaganda produced by the global Salafi movement often overlooks or downplays local differences and grievances, to the detriment of overall effectiveness. The Salafi-jihadists are also critical of democracy and, with this stance, they alienate more mainstream Islamists, large segments of the population, as well as much of the opposition in general. The tyrannical nature of the government is often a rallying cry for opposition movements of all sorts, and the Salafi-jihadists rejection of representative government creates impediments to forging a united front with democratic-leaning parts of the opposition. Perhaps most importantly, it also alienates other Islamist groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, which are more favorable to democracy or at the very least view it as a means of gaining power. In addition, many struggles do not fit the universal Salafi-jihadist narrative. The United States, the ideal bogeyman, has played an active role in some conflicts, notably Afghanistan and Iraq, but only a minor one in Yemen and almost none in Algeria, Mali, Nigeria, and others. At times the conflict on the ground is solely among Muslim actors, and between Sunni Muslims at that. This renders the use of standard Al Qaeda rhetoric and propaganda to motivate fighters difficult. In general Salafi-jihadists espouse a vanguard strategy, believing that a relatively small and select group of fighters will lead the Muslim community to victory. As a result, they fail to build the social welfare and political mobilization networks that give many insurgencies deep roots in a society. Hamas and Hizballah build hospitals, schools, and housing, gaining admiration and a wealth of connections in the process. 36 This neglect of investment in social welfare organizations by most Salafi-jihadist groups, however, is a tremendous weakness, depriving them of a source of legitimacy and networks in society. Just as the Salafi-jihadists have a built-in network of supporters, so too do they suffer immediate enemies. The Salafi-jihadists are violently hostile to religious minorities such as Shi a in Afghanistan and Iraq and Alawis in Syria. In addition, they strongly oppose mystical traditions, such as the Sufi brotherhoods in Algeria and Mali. Non-Muslim minorities, such as Arab Christians, are of course also an anathema. In addition to these obvious, and from the Salafi-jihadist point of view, welcome, adversaries, the Salafi-jihadists often oppose traditional power structures. Their emphasis on Islamic purity frequently puts them at odds with tribal leaders and traditional religious authorities. Al Qaeda central has tried to convince affiliate groups to refrain from alienating these constituencies, usually to no avail.

11 362 D. Byman The highly ideological nature of the Salafi-jihadist movement makes it prone to division. Its credo rests on the rejection of religious compromise. However, what constitutes the true faith and proper practice is divisive even within, more accurately especially within, the most extreme circles. Divisions are particularly acute around two related issues: who is a true Muslim, and what is the acceptable level of civilian casualties. Some Salafis see non- Sunnis as merely misguided, while others consider them to be apostates. Thus, AQAP shuns cooperation with Houthis in Yemen, a potentially powerful ally against the weak Yemeni government, considering instead the tribal and Shi a group as an enemy. Further, some Salafis condemn all non-salafis, while others are accepting of practicing Sunnis who are less puritanical. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Salafi insurgents may alienate potential supporters within the Sunni community by rejecting their traditions and leaders, thus depriving themselves of valuable manpower and potentially creating a counterintelligence disaster. The decision to cast some or all non-salafis as apostates makes killing them more acceptable another key weakness of this type of insurgency. Coercion is vital to successful insurgencies, but it depends on being able to both reward as well as punish, and Salafis are far better at the former than the latter. In addition, their killing of civilians often alienates potential supporters and recruits throughout the Muslim world. The Al Qaeda core has learned the lesson of the dangers posed by excessive killing of civilians and has urged affiliates like AQI to be discriminate usually to no avail. A study by West Point found that due to the killing of civilians and other mistakes committed by affiliates, some within the Al Qaeda command sought to distance the core from its affiliates. 37 Although bin Laden favored attacks on civilian targets like embassies and the World Trade Center, even he worried that regular and indiscriminate attacks on ordinary civilians like those perpetrated by AQI could discredit the movement in the eyes of ordinary Muslims, distorting the image of the jihadis in the eyes of the umma s [Muslim community s] general public and separating them from their popular bases. 38 Despite the common critique that the Salafi-jihadist agenda is entirely destructive, in reality many groups care tremendously about ruling. Imposing an Islamic state, even on part of a country, is often a priority for Salafi insurgents: Afghanistan, Iraq, Mali, and Yemen have all seen varying efforts in this regard. Such an effort, however, often alienates more than it attracts. Much of the Salafi critique is more compelling to the populace when in opposition. In power, the discrimination, poor social service provision, corruption, and other governmental problems they fought against do not go away, and the added harsh repression of non-salafi voices often further alienates the population. Divisions within the leadership based on ideology, personality, rival charismatic leaders, or other differences commonly make Salafi groups less effective than their numbers would suggest. Frequently they work directly against like-minded groups, or at least strictly limit cooperation with them. In addition, they may not cooperate with other anti-regime forces on purely ideological grounds. Perhaps more importantly, the divisions and multiple leaders constrain the ability of the organization to act as a coherent whole. Many of the essentials of successful insurgency, such as using violence selectively, become problematic with this structure. For instance, individual groups may use ferocious violence, discrediting the movement as a whole, or groups may fight each other and otherwise waste scarce resources. The decentralization of the Salafi movement also complicates counterintelligence. They are less able to systematically probe for leaks, compartment information, teach sophisticated operational security, or isolate leadership elements. Further, the group s use of, and reliance on, foreign elements and their concomitant opposition to local community institutions and leaders creates added difficulties in intelligence. 39

12 Fighting Salafi-Jihadist Insurgencies 363 Although Salafi insurgents often enjoy instant substate allies across borders, these friends are outweighed by a bigger problem: hostile neighboring governments. A few regimes in the Middle East cynically exploit Salafi groups, giving them arms, a haven, and other support in order to weaken rivals or otherwise serve regime interests. Yet even these regimes remain hostile to these groups in general, out of fear that their ideology might inspire radicals within the country and in response to pressure from the many enemies of Salafi insurgents, particularly the United States. Thus most governments will provide intelligence to the United States, assist in policing borders, and otherwise oppose the insurgency. Even countries that remain hostile to the United States, like Iran, are fickle friends to the Salafi-jihadists, whose assistance often hurts as much as helps. 40 Internationally, Salafi-jihadists consistently make enemies of Western powers, particularly the United States. In response, Washington regularly aids governments opposed to Salafi-jihadists while also employing its own forces and resources to target them directly. The results can be disastrous for the Salafi-jihadists. Abu Musab al-suri, a jihadist strategist, declared that the 9/11 attacks cast jihadists into a fiery furnace... a hellfire which consumed most of their leaders, fighters, and bases Impact on the COIN Toolkit The counterinsurgency toolkit for fighting Salafi-jihadist insurgencies overlaps considerably with the standard toolkit, but the efficacy of different instruments, and their relative importance, varies considerably. As with any insurgency, the United States will want to build up the host government s ability to effectively prosecute COIN a difficult task that usually involves wrenching political and economic changes as well as military training. 42 Washington can also assist in killing and arresting suspected insurgents, particularly leaders and key operatives. Local community support is vital: insurgencies must be fought at the national and local level simultaneously. When fighting the Salafi-jihadist doctrine, the United States has less ability to attack the messenger and the message than it did for Communist or nationalist insurgencies. The United States, of course, is not a historic center of Islam and Muslim-American religious leaders do not enjoy a significant following in the Muslim world itself. Simply put, as the polling data suggest, the United States is not viewed as credible by religious publics in the Muslim world, let alone in Salafi communities. Favorability ratings of the United States and the Obama administration hover at less than twenty percent in many Muslim countries. 43 Moreover, U.S. policies can and should feed into much of the Salafi-jihadist narrative. Of course, the United States is not bent on subjugating the Muslim world. But the United States is, and should be, supportive of women s rights and democracy. Recent provocations, like the airing of the anti-muslim screed The Innocence of Muslims, are inevitable in a large and boisterous democracy; indeed, their frequency may grow as globalization better connects more and more audiences and as plummeting production costs allow even the most pathetic of fools to produce his own movie. More controversially, the United States remains an unabashed ally of Israel, and even adopting a more critical stance here would not satisfy the vast majority of skeptics in the Muslim world. Washington will, by necessity, also work with Arab dictators and other local foes in a range of ways. The United States can, however, amplify internal critics of the Salafi-jihadist insurgents in the Muslim world. Their critiques are far more effective than any originating in the West, and U.S. assistance can help to distribute their videos and treatises more widely, putting the insurgents on the defensive. The global nature of the debate works as an advantage here, as critics of the insurgents from Egypt to Indonesia can all be harnessed.

13 364 D. Byman As with any insurgency, depriving the movement of a haven in a neighboring state or remote part of the country is vital. However, if a haven cannot be prevented, it may offer intelligence advantages, providing a point of concentration for intelligence assets. 44 In addition, the use of drone aircraft enables targeting in some havens that had previously been considered inviolable. 45 Ironically, the drone campaigns are conducted in countries like Pakistan and Yemen, which are nominal allies, and not on the territories of avowed enemies, like Iran. Sources of radicalization, such as mosques and religious schools, are also vulnerable to disruption. Truly militant mosques and madrassahs in Pakistan in reality represent only a small fraction of religious institutions. So it s not a question of changing the entire education system or reforming the religious establishment, which is at times advocated, but instead focusing, for intelligence purposes, on a finite number of particular madrassahs, public schools, and mosques. Arresting and killing terrorist leaders, while desirable, embodies a less effective approach in the case of Salafi-jihadist insurgencies than for other types. Here their common weaknesses decentralization and multiple charismatic leaders are an asset. While removing one node is still valuable, the redundancy inherent in their organizations allows them to compensate with less disruption than would be so for a hierarchical organizations. So while drone strikes offer many advantages, the insurgencies in question are often already divided and decentralized. Charismatic leaders, however, are an important exception to this point that is particularly relevant to the Salafi-jihadist insurgencies. Salafi-jihadist groups are less institutionalized and more likely to rise and fall on the strengths of individuals. If these leaders are particularly committed to attacking the United States or are otherwise deemed unusually hostile to U.S. interests compared to likely successors, then targeting them may have more of a payoff than targeting non-salafi-jihadist groups. Although most allies share hostility to Salafi-jihadist insurgencies, many can be reluctant to confront them, particularly if the insurgents enjoy domestic support. Changing this passivity is a vital U.S. task. This represents particular difficulties, as the United States may not actively oppose all the causes being supported (such as aid to fighters in Syria), and of course allies may be far more supportive of these causes. Much of the effort to coordinate and encourage cooperation must be realized behind the scenes, as the legitimacy of the regime risks falling further if they are perceived to be acting on America s behest against Islamic voices. The deliberate killing of civilians and the predominance of takfiri elements within the Salafi-jihadist movement both embody powerful negatives that can be leveraged against these groups by parties seeking to undermine their popular support. Their practice of declaring other Sunni Muslims to be unbelievers is wildly unpopular with the wider public and earns the jihadists condemnation from a range of religious leaders, as well as other jihadists. In the cases of Egypt and Algeria in the 1990s, the brutal tactics employed by the various terrorist and insurgent groups against fellow Muslims alienated potential recruits and funders, eventually leaving the groups isolated. 46 Ten years later, AQI suffered a similar fate. Highlighting differences and fissures is also vital. Members of the global jihadist movement hold markedly different views on which religious leaders to follow, the nature of an Islamic state, the priority of different fronts in the struggle, and so on. An information operations campaign can work to widen these gaps, emphasizing, and thus encouraging, the divergences. Promoting certain websites over others, giving wide play to dissenting voices, and reprinting critical tracts all represent methods useful in advancing anti radical

14 Fighting Salafi-Jihadist Insurgencies 365 Islamist critiques. Much of this effort is more effectively executed by the security services of U.S. allies, which may be more familiar with local groups, particularly on propaganda and recruiting levels, but the United States can provide technical and financial support for their efforts. The issue of democracy offers another opportunity to combat Salafi-jihadi influence. The United States and its allies should call attention to Salafi-jihadists repeated and bitter critiques of democracy. More than this, the United States should advocate publically for open political systems in communities from which jihadists draw, as polls have found widespread support for democracy in Arab and Muslim countries. 47 U.S. leaders should communicate their support for free elections and their willingness to engage with peaceful Salafi-jihadists of all stripes, even where disagreement remains significant. U.S. public diplomacy should also highlight statements by peaceful Salafi leaders in support of elections and draw contrast between these views and those espoused in the communiqués of foreign Salafi-jihadists. Such an effort may lead to tension between the radical, global elements of the jihadist group and those that have a more local orientation. In Iraq such efforts proved successful U.S.-sponsored elections at the end of 2005 led to splits between Zarqawi s group and other Sunnis, including some who had fought alongside him. The Sunni Association of Muslim Schools declared that Zarqawi s threats to massacre those who participated in elections damaged the image of the jihad. 48 Local nationalism is, or at least can be, a potent U.S. ally when fighting Salafijihadist groups. 49 Many of the most important jihadist-linked struggles, such as those in Chechnya, Kashmir, and Iraq, began with a more straightforward nationalist struggle against a perceived foreign invader. And even in cases where the struggle did not commence for nationalistic reasons, such as in Yemen, nationalism remains a pivotal issue among locals as well as many within the jihadist community. Salafi-jihadists more global focus is often at odds with this initial, local focus of jihadist struggles. One conflict in which this dilemma has been evident is in Somalia. Because of its affiliation with Al Qaeda, the Shebaab runs the risk of having one of its most powerful ideological card Somali nationalist, anti-foreigner sentiment turned against it, as domestic adversaries accuse it of being a puppet of foreign jihadists bringing more trouble to the country. 50 In addition, these foreign fighters often attempt to undermine local power relationships by going against tribe and clan structures. Given this, and the strong anti-foreign sentiment of many Somalis, playing up the role of foreigners in the Shebaab s senior leadership ranks is vital. Even the egregious behavior of a few individuals who do not represent broader trends should be highlighted to discredit the relationship with foreign Salafi-jihadists in general. In short, whenever possible, the foreign nature of Salafi-jihadists should be emphasized, particularly when it involves atrocities or other unwelcome behavior. Rather than allowing Salafi-jihadists to exploit nationalism for its ends, the goal should be to expose Salafi-jihadists for the anti-national force they represent. Foreign allies are often best positioned for intelligence penetration given that many recruits, fund-raisers, and other key personnel of the Salafi-jihadist insurgency emanate from outside the borders of the country in conflict. In general, the United States should remain in the background and focus on training and advisory programs to improve indigenous capacity, as open U.S. support can undercut the legitimacy of a government and allow insurgents to claim the nationalist mantle by default. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq at the end of 2011, and the planned drawdown of American troops from Afghanistan are opportunities to implement this more broadly in the Muslim world. The U.S. role, however, remains significant: allies often are suspicious of one another or lack the analytic capacity to piece together and coordinate information and operations from multiple countries.